Well bikers are screwed - ACC levy

[StoneY]

We cannot afford to have idiots standing up in public and telling the media "waaaa... it's all the car drivers fault"

BRONZ have been doing it for years. So much so that even the majority of motorcyclists believe their bullshit.

And look where we are now.

Well, one thing that has been confirmed statsically over the last few days by excerpts from current research figures, is 60% of on road motorcycle accidents are fault of 'other vehicle'

Take that 33% of bike accidents do not involve another vehicle (its not 33 exact I cant be fucked trolling for it) we still do not deserve this hike



Edit: many of the 'non involving other vehicle' bike crashes in ACC claim stats can be put down to off road use they dont seperate that in the 'bike crash' report

[dipshit]

Well, one thing that has been confirmed statsically over the last few days by excerpts from current research figures, is 60% of on road motorcycle accidents are fault of 'other vehicle'

It is not. It is 60% of the multiple vehicle accidents involving a motorcycle were the fault of the other vehicle.

Of all motorcycle accidents, about 40% were the fault of another vehicle.

many of the 'non involving other vehicle' bike crashes in ACC claim stats can be put down to off road use they dont seperate that in the 'bike crash' report

That appears not to be the case. ACC have categories for road claims, sports claims, and farming accident claims.

[jono035]

I wonder how many of the single-vehicle accidents involve a vehicle that simply leaves the scene, i.e. biker taking evasive action to avoid a cager doing something stupid and ends up in a ditch...

I doubt it would be many, but even a few % could make the difference.

Any other possible reasons? Obviously there is the whole riding to the conditions argument when faced with road surface issues, but I know of a few places up north where you come around a blind corner to a non-descript cattle crossing that is ALWAYS coated in crap. I don't believe in black and white situations.

[cs363]

We cannot afford to have idiots standing up in public and telling the media "waaaa... it's all the car drivers fault"

BRONZ have been doing it for years. So much so that even the majority of motorcyclists believe their bullshit.

And look where we are now.

Agreed. Despite what some may think of car drivers, we need as much of the ACC levy paying general public onside as possible. Trying to divert blame onto other levy payers will not assist our cause at all.
The message is that it is unfair, but from the viewpoint that ACC is supposedly a no fault, egalitarian system - yet a minority group is being targeted for higher levies. Yes?

[Ixion]

Mmmmm........good post Ix but only half the story. The other side is that the injured at-fault motorcyclist still has to be hospitalised, recuperated, and compensated for lost earnings. If we assume a free healthcare system, the other costs will be covered by insurance held by the motorcyclist.

Yes there will be motorcyclists who don't insure, but in a social democracy they are going to be picked up by the taxpayer. The high human cost of motorcycle accidents is unavoidable - it gets paid one way or another.

True. The cost has to be paid in the end

But, the way ACC is structured, means that we, as bikers are charged (in ACCs books) with (mostly) the cost of accidents where we are to blame. AND those where we are not.

WHich would be fair enough , ACC being a no-fault system, if they did not then turn round and say "Well, it's your fault you cost us so much, so we are going to charge you more".

[dipshit]

The message is that it is unfair, but from the viewpoint that ACC is supposedly a no fault, egalitarian system - yet a minority group is being targeted for higher levies. Yes?

Yes, that would be a much better approach. You would have a much better chance of getting the whole country rallying against it.

[cs363]

Yes, that would be a much better approach. You would have a much better chance of getting the whole country rallying against it.

Cool

Hopefully everyone is on the same page.......

[Winston001]

Which would be fair enough , ACC being a no-fault system, if they did not then turn round and say "Well, it's your fault you cost us so much, so we are going to charge you more".

Ah - ACC aren't exactly saying "its your fault". Rather their point is -

"You motorcyclists engage in an activity which is higher risk (16x) than other mechanised road users. Accordingly you will be levied a sum which is closer to the real cost of treating your accidents. By choosing to ride a motorcycle you expose yourself to high risk regardless of fault."

[Ixion]

But car drivers are at significantly greater risk than truck drivers (or SUV drivers for that matter). Why are they not likewise treated, then.

[dipshit]

WHich would be fair enough , ACC being a no-fault system, if they did not then turn round and say "Well, it's your fault you cost us so much, so we are going to charge you more".

And in a way I am fine with that. I voluntarily choose to ride a bike that I know I stand a higher chance of injury in more incidences that a car that would have prevented an injury. (minor T-bone at an intersection, going straight through a corner and through a farmer's fence etc.)

I don't mind paying a bit extra for cover. If it was private accident medical cover, I am sure I would be paying more to ride a bike than using a car anyhow.

[Bend-it]

Ah - ACC aren't exactly saying "its your fault". Rather their point is -

"You motorcyclists engage in an activity which is higher risk (16x) than other mechanised road users. Accordingly you will be levied a sum which is closer to the real cost of treating your accidents. By choosing to ride a motorcycle you expose yourself to high risk regardless of fault."

But it's the inconsistency which gets me... Why not other high risk activities like sports, or policemen, or firemen or whatever??

Sporting injuries cost ACC over $200 million (over 3 x bikers) in 2007/2008, but you don't pay any ACC to book an indoor soccer court or squash court or whatever... Why don't they target them?

Oooohh... maybe it's 'coz too large a proportion of the population play sports and it'll be definite political suicide...

[dipshit]

Ah - ACC aren't exactly saying "its your fault". Rather their point is -

"You motorcyclists engage in an activity which is higher risk (16x) than other mechanised road users. Accordingly you will be levied a sum which is closer to the real cost of treating your accidents. By choosing to ride a motorcycle you expose yourself to high risk regardless of fault."

My thoughts exactly.

[Bend-it]

Beyond what it may or may not do to our levies, this proposal makes ACC internally inconsistent...

There are two tracks ACC could take:-

1. People pay according to what they can afford, so ACC premiums are tied to earning with a small component tied to vehicle ownership. This is what is happening currently.
2. People pay according to their risk profile, which is what is ACC levies for motorcycles is leading towards.

Either of these are fine, they are just different models... as long as they are applied consistently.

With the current proposals, it will be "People pay what they can afford, UNLESS they're motorcyclists! In which case, WE WILL SCREW THEM OVER MUAHAHAHAH!!!" That's discrimination based on chosen mode of transport by anyone's standard, and clearly victimising a visible minority.

[Rayray401]

But it's the inconsistency which gets me... Why not other high risk activities like sports, or policemen, or firemen or whatever??

Sporting injuries cost ACC over $200 million (over 3 x bikers) in 2007/2008, but you don't pay any ACC to book an indoor soccer court or squash court or whatever... Why don't they target them?

Oooohh... maybe it's 'coz too large a proportion of the population play sports and it'll be definite political suicide...

OR, theyre afraid that parents wont let billy play rugby anymore, instead buy him a PS3 and let him get fat instead of paying the govt?

[dipshit]

But it's the inconsistency which gets me... Why not other high risk activities like sports, or policemen, or firemen or whatever??

waaaa... waaaa... which is just more whingeing and moaning.